Friday
Jan082010
UPDATED Israel: Loyalty, Lives, and the Arab Population
Friday, January 8, 2010 at 4:30 
UPDATE 7 January: The bill proposing that the state enforce equal allocation of land to Jews and Arabs was not only rejected by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation but also by the Knesset on Wednesday.Therefore, the Reception Committees of Israeli Communities can decide who will reside in their towns and can prevent Israeli Arabs from living in the same town.
*** ***
On Sunday, the Ministerial Legislation Committee of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, discussed a bill for legislators to swear a "loyalty oath" to the Jewish character of Israel. At the end, the bill was passed to the coalition leaders due to the fear that the Labor Party would veto it.
The bill, proposed by Israel Beiteinu MK David Rotem, would change the oath from "I pledge loyalty to the State of Israel," to "I pledge loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish, Zionist, democratic state, and to its symbols and values". Rotem explained the aim of the proposal: "It is to make sure MKs are loyal to Israel as a Jewish state. Anyone who doesn't want to be faithful should not be an MK."
The bill emerged after MK Taleb a-Sanaa (United Arab List-Ta'al) allowed, via his cellphone, Gaza leader Ismail Haniya to address the protesters at the Erez crossing of Israel. Rotem added:
Anyone who saw and heard recently remarks made be MKs [Taleb] A-Sana and [Jamal] Zehalka who vilified the defense minister and allowed the biggest enemy of the State of Israel to speak to the public via a mobile phone owned by the Knesset and the state, understands intuitively that there is a need to bring MKs to be loyal to the state.
More importantly, another bill proposing that the state enforce equal allocation of land to Jews and Arabs was rejected. The measure was intended to counter a bill, passed two weeks ago, which states that reception committees of Israeli communities can decide who will reside in their towns. The author of the bill, MK Ahmed Tibi, said:
Yet again, the Israeli government has proven that it is avoiding the principle of civil equality.... [The Government] ignores Arabs' rights, and hasn't approved the building of a new Arab village since 1948. The government failed at the challenge I placed before it, and that saddens me.
Since the foundation of the state, the Israel Lands Administration is solely used as Jewish land administration. The director of the Israel Lands Administration has used all the tactics, with the help of the Jewish Agency, to allocate state land only to Jews. Despite the bitter attempt over the decades, not even one Arab town has been established since the state's foundation. Therefore a bill must be passed which stipulates that the Israel Lands Administration will serve all the state's citizens without discrimination on religion or nationality, and will promise an equal allocation of land to better the Arab population of Israel.
Reader Comments (9)
Referring the bill back to the coalition does not constitute an approval. To the contrary, this means that the bill has been killed, because, as a Basic Law amendment, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339384406&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull" rel="nofollow">it will not pass unless every coalition party supports it, and Avoda/Labor will not do so.
In fact, the Arutz Sheva article you cite states that "the committee's decision was based on a claim that members of the coalition were expected to veto the bill" - in other words, they punted.
The defeat of the land bill is unfortunate but to be expected given that it was not a government bill. And the time to fight the selection committee bill is in fact now - it has passed only its first reading, it is now back in committee and will likely be amended drastically before it comes back to the floor. There is still time to persuade the committee to kill it, to delete objectionable features or to add safeguards against discrimination. If not then it must be fought in court.
Azazel, I have not mentioned that the loyalty bill was approved. It was passed to the leaders since the Labor was ready to veto it. One of its implications might be interpreted as what you call it "killed." Or it might be just a start of a second round of check-ups among MKs.
"Azazel, I have not mentioned that the loyalty bill was approved."
Please re-read the first sentence of your main post, which uses exactly that word.
In any event, I don't think there can be much doubt about the fate of the bill, given that the Labor leadership has vowed to kill it and that an amendment to a Basic Law cannot pass without their support. Unless this procedural hurdle can be overcome, which would take a change of mind on their part, there will be no opportunity for a second round. Think of it as a Senate filibuster.
Azazel, thank you. There must have been a confusion during the editing process. As you have noticed, both "approval" and "passing" have been used in the first paragraph. I am now correcting it. Please accept my apologies.
I hope you are right that it will not turn back to the parliament following the passing process.
Thank you.
Azazel/Ali,
My apologies to you both. The editing error was mine.
S.
Thank you Ali. I am very much opposed to this bill, which is out of place in any country that calls itself a democracy, and was shocked to see a post suggesting that it had become law without my knowledge! I'm just glad it turned out not to be so.
BTW, don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for your excellent coverage of the Middle East and particularly Iran.
Azazel,
There is nothing to get wrong and, indeed, I am thankful to your warning so we corrected it. Thank you for your kind words as well.